Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Power can be rightfully exercised over a member of a civilized community only to prevent harm to others.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The self/other harm distinction presupposes an atomistic conception of the self that communitarians like MacIntyre argue is philosophically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Because persons are constituted by social relationships and practices, harms to communal norms and character are genuinely harms to others, not merely self-regarding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Devlin's claim that shared morality is a public good whose erosion harms society provides a legitimate basis for power beyond Mill's narrow harm principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's offense principle demonstrates that serious, profound offense to unwilling witnesses constitutes a harm sufficient to justify legal prohibition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill's harm principle, as historically articulated, cannot adequately distinguish between setback of interests and mere preference-frustration without importing contested value judgments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The indeterminacy of 'harm to others' means the principle functions as a rhetorical constraint rather than a determinate criterion, undermining its claim to limit sovereign power.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A person's own good, whether physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant for compelling that person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Compulsion is not justified merely because it would make a person happier or because others believe it would be wise or right.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Only conduct that concerns others makes a person amenable to society's authority.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.